MA7-03524

MA7-03524

The claimant admitted that she could relocate internally to XXXXX where her family lives and that her only fear was a generalized risk of kidnapping for ransom; because that risk is generalized and an internal flight alternative is available, the claim fails the tests for recognition as a Convention refugee under s.96 and as a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA7-03524
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (eligibility Determination)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (eligibility Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the risk alleged (kidnapping for ransom) is a generalized risk excluded from protection
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (relocation within Haiti) is available to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant admitted that she could relocate internally to XXXXX where her family lives and that her only fear was a generalized risk of kidnapping for ransom; because that risk is generalized and an internal flight alternative is available, the claim fails the tests for recognition as a Convention refugee under s.96 and as a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • The claims of XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected.
  • Neither claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA or as a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.